will25u said:

---

...It offers Comey a basis for believing that it is also used in a non-threatening way. However, it runs against the grain of Comey's suggestion that this was a spontaneous posting of a message created by a third party. It suggests that Comey may have contemplated the threatening…

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) August 15, 2026

---

What a POS!

What a freak.

Dayum. One less Christmas card to send.

ts5641 said:

---

will25u said:

---

...It offers Comey a basis for believing that it is also used in a non-threatening way. However, it runs against the grain of Comey's suggestion that this was a spontaneous posting of a message created by a third party. It suggests that Comey may have contemplated the threatening…

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) August 15, 2026

---

What a POS!

---

They should use the legal precedence that was set when they prosecuted the people who put these out



Oh wait.....

No wait that's diffe(R)ent REEEEEE

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

. I do know who hid all of Hillary's crimes, took part in spying on Trump, bankrupted General Flynn, stole classified information, and took part in a conspiracy to deprive We the People of the governance of the President we elected.

---

And I know who didn't bother to prosecute her because she had already suffered enough.


Comey is never going to get what he deserves, sadly. The best we can hope for is to make him squirm.

Hits a little different coming from the former Director of the FBI who tried to bury Trump, et al., and still has followers/loyalists in the Bureau.

But your point is valid.

hawk1689 said:

---

James Coney is gonna end up suicided. His usefulness has ended.

---

so you're saying to 86 Comey?

GeorgiAg said:

---

hawk1689 said:

---

James Coney is gonna end up suicided. His usefulness has ended.

---

so you're saying to 86 Comey?

---

I'm not speaking for him but even Webb Hubble fathered a first kid when he Vince Fostered into the netherworld.

boulderaggie said:

---

Dayum. One less Christmas card to send.

---

Dam… they just laid it out there, that's pretty bad when family members are so disgusted with your husband they need to call both of them out like that. No soup for you Jim!

I always heard 86 in a restaurant context. "I have the pastrami with chips, but 86 the pickle on the side."

Again, the criminal standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. How are you going to convict him with the ambiguity in the phrase? Seems vindictive and a waste of taxpayer money. Of course, Comey is going to have to spend a bunch of money, so I think Trump's happy with that. What's another couple of $100k on the national debt, right? We have all the other criminals prosecuted, right?

But maybe the guy that was gonna appeal the ATF judgment is busy with Comey, so there's that.

GeorgiAg said:

---

I always heard 86 in a restaurant context. "I have the pastrami with chips, but 86 the pickle on the side."

Again, the criminal standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. How are you going to convict him with the ambiguity in the phrase? Seems vindictive and a waste of taxpayer money. Of course, Comey is going to have to spend a bunch of money, so I think Trump's happy with that. What's another couple of $100k on the national debt, right? We have all the other criminals prosecuted, right?

But maybe the guy that was gonna appeal the ATF judgment is busy with Comey, so there's that.

---

When Trump becomes the killed menu item...

GeorgiAg said:

---

I always heard 86 in a restaurant context. "I have the pastrami with chips, but 86 the pickle on the side."

Again, the criminal standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. How are you going to convict him with the ambiguity in the phrase? Seems vindictive and a waste of taxpayer money. Of course, Comey is going to have to spend a bunch of money, so I think Trump's happy with that. What's another couple of $100k on the national debt, right? We have all the other criminals prosecuted, right?

But maybe the guy that was gonna appeal the ATF judgment is busy with Comey, so there's that.

---

Well you probably worked in a service industry capacity as such at some point. Comey has been a prosecutor/law man his whole career, and his wife was texting him excuses for the phrase being non-violent right before he posted it, and then he refused to give the photo original to SS because he didn't want to share the metadata apparently.

In his capacity as FBI director he was incredibly familiar with the violent nature of '86' slang in police work, and was also well aware of the assassination threats to Trump. I mean, he became a legal ethics professor for goodness sakes.

There are good legal minds who, while skeptical, think the prosecution has solid merit.

...It offers Comey a basis for believing that it is also used in a non-threatening way. However, it runs against the grain of Comey's suggestion that this was a spontaneous posting of a message created by a third party. It suggests that Comey may have contemplated the threatening…

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) August 15, 2026

bobbranco said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

I always heard 86 in a restaurant context. "I have the pastrami with chips, but 86 the pickle on the side."

Again, the criminal standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. How are you going to convict him with the ambiguity in the phrase? Seems vindictive and a waste of taxpayer money. Of course, Comey is going to have to spend a bunch of money, so I think Trump's happy with that. What's another couple of $100k on the national debt, right? We have all the other criminals prosecuted, right?

But maybe the guy that was gonna appeal the ATF judgment is busy with Comey, so there's that.

---

When Trump becomes the killed menu item...

---

Impeached menu item?

(I agree Comey is a [female hygiene product] and this was in very poor taste, but the phrase also means omit, discard, etc...) Just seems like a colossal waste of time.

GeorgiAg said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

I always heard 86 in a restaurant context. "I have the pastrami with chips, but 86 the pickle on the side."

Again, the criminal standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. How are you going to convict him with the ambiguity in the phrase? Seems vindictive and a waste of taxpayer money. Of course, Comey is going to have to spend a bunch of money, so I think Trump's happy with that. What's another couple of $100k on the national debt, right? We have all the other criminals prosecuted, right?

But maybe the guy that was gonna appeal the ATF judgment is busy with Comey, so there's that.

---

When Trump becomes the killed menu item...

---

Impeached menu item?

(I agree Comey is a [female hygiene product] and this was in very poor taste, but the phrase also means omit, discard, etc...) Just seems like a colossal waste of time.

---

Weasel words.

Now if he had said "make him sleep with the fishes," "wipe-out," "terminate," "eradicate," "rub out," etc.

Are they also prosecuting him for lesser crimes? Reckless endangerment, etc? Ok, then I'll buy that. I have not been following this. I don't see how murder is possible given the ambiguity. I don't do criminal law, especially federal criminal law. There is also heavy first amendment protection here.

It's really not ambiguous.

Quote:

---

I am thoroughly embarrassed to have ever defended the absolute coward that is your husband. You and Jim are some of the least accepting, most hypocritical people I've had the displeasure of knowing. I hope Jim goes to jail for his crimes.

---

Quote:

---

There are good legal minds who, while skeptical, think the prosecution has solid merit.

---

Are there any that think this case is not going to ultimately fail? I haven't seen any.


Also, Turley was an odd X post to link as he does not seem to see solid merit to the prosecution.

GeorgiAg said:

---

hawk1689 said:

---

James Coney is gonna end up suicided. His usefulness has ended.

---

so you're saying to 86 Comey?

---

I'd be fine with that.

I'll preface by saying I don't do criminal law so I don't have experience on how federal judges handle motion to dismiss at this stage under criminal procedure.

The government response on the true threat/first amendment motion basically makes the argument that a jury should decide this because context matters so much.

Recall there are two things at play here. (1) Comey had some subjective understanding of his statements' threatening nature. There appears to be plenty of evidence of that. The standard is recklessness, so the government only has to show Comey
that a person "consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk that his conduct will cause harm to another".

(2) Comey means to "commit an act of unlawful violence." Here, they have to show what the statement conveys to the person on the receiving end. This is the objective part.


My wildass guess is that the court denies the motion to dismiss on first amendment grounds. Because context matters, the judge a let a jury decide. (Edit: lets the government go to trial)

Additional wildass guess is that some point after the government case and chief, the case gets dismissed because they can't show the objective part.

I still haven't seen anyone here claim that they believe comey was conveying the message that he intended to go take out Trump. people saying he was inciting something, or calling for an assassination, etc.. but that's not what he's charged with. There was much speculation of the government doing a superseding indictment, but that did not happen.

BMX Bandit said:

---

I'll preface by saying I don't do criminal law so I don't have experience on how federal judges handle motion to dismiss at this stage under criminal procedure.

The government response on the true threat/first amendment motion basically makes the argument that a jury should decide this because context matters so much.

Recall there are two things at play here. (1) Comey had some subjective understanding of his statements' threatening nature. There appears to be plenty of evidence of that. The standard is recklessness, so the government only has to show Comey
that a person "consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk that his conduct will cause harm to another".

(2) Comey means to "commit an act of unlawful violence." Here, they have to show what the statement conveys to the person on the receiving end. This is the objective part.


My wildass guess is that the court denies the motion to dismiss on first amendment grounds. Because context matters, the judge a let a jury decide.

Additional wildass guess is that some point after the government case and chief, the case gets dismissed because they can't show the objective part.

I still haven't seen anyone here claim that they believe comey was conveying the message that he intended to go take out Trump. people saying he was inciting something, or calling for an assassination, etc.. but that's not what he's charged with. There was much speculation of the government doing a superseding indictment, but that did not happen.

---

He knew exactly what he was doing and what it could possibly lead to. But he was clever enough to do it in a way that will be impossible to prove criminality.

Not that I am aware of. But folks should keep in mind this was part of a trilogy of insta posts by Comey designed to hype up his book, including reading a passage then about fans of his fictional hero/main character grievously harming political opponents.

Too many people are either ignorant of the facts, or being obtuse as relates to Comey’s “8647” (in shells!) Instagram post.

It was not a simple “one-off” post. Faulty premise and factually incorrect.

So everyone comparing it to Jack Posobiec’s 2022 tweet of “8646” is not… pic.twitter.com/eAv1ysqInw

— Viva Frei (@thevivafrei) April 29, 2026

Quote:

---

Too many people are either ignorant of the facts, or being obtuse as relates to Comey's "8647" (in shells!) Instagram post.

It was not a simple "one-off" post. Faulty premise and factually incorrect.

So everyone comparing it to Jack Posobiec's 2022 tweet of "8646" is not comparing comparables.

Also, not an irrelevant factor - Jack is not the former Director of the FBI!

Posobiec's tweet was stupid. And I would expect to be investigated and possibly charged if I were to ever post anything so stupid.

That says, now back to it not being a "one-off" possibly ambiguous tweet:

People are either unaware of, or ignoring the context of Comey's Instagram post. It was not a "one-off". It was actually the second in a series of three posts, all of which were connected, self-referential, and clearly deliberately so.

Post 1: Comey at the beach, reading his new book, FDR Drive (image attached).

Post 2: 8647 in shells.

Post 3: The summary of his new book which he is reading in Post 1. That summary:

"Garcia believes Buchanan went far beyond the protection of the first amendment when *he singled out his enemies by name* and *suggested "something should be done" about them*. His fans have obliged, killing or grievously, injuring some of his foes."

Comey is telling you exactly what he is doing.

Reading his book.

Singling out his enemies by name (as close as he can get) - 47 for Trump.

Suggesting "something should be done about them" - 86 for kill or eliminate.

And "his fans have obliged" from his book description that he posted.

All of the elements are there to eliminate any ambiguity as to what common meant - sandwiching his 8647 in shells in between a picture of him reading his book, and a summary of his book - which has to do with calling out enemies by name, suggesting something should be done to them, and his fans obliging.
...
That said, anyone pretending there's ambiguity, or pretending to offer serious analysis while ignoring or being unaware of the actual context - now deleted - of what Comey actually did (clearly setting out knowledge and intent) is either ignorant or dishonest. Either way, their opinions should be disregarded.

---

The text message with his wife 2 minutes prior to post 2 just adds more context.

annie88 said:

---

It's really not ambiguous.

---

I must have missed your outrage.

Get a grip, it's a Tshirt

Im Gipper said:

---

And I know who didn't bother to prosecute her because she had already suffered enough.


Comey is never going to get what he deserves, sadly. The best we can hope for is to make him squirm.

---

Which is a completely separate issue and nothing but a deflection.

Law-Apt_3G said:

---

Get a grip, it's a Tshirt

---

It's either a presidential death threat or it is not. You cannot walk around with a Kill Bush, Clinton, Obama, etc. shirt without getting a visit from Secret Service.

I think this is being blown out of proportion. A visit from SS with Comey and a public apology explaining why it was wrong should be sufficient.

GeorgiAg said:

---

Law-Apt_3G said:

---

Get a grip, it's a Tshirt

---

It's either a presidential death threat or it is not. You cannot walk around with a Kill Bush, Clinton, Obama, etc. shirt without getting a visit from Secret Service.

I think this is being blown out of proportion. A visit from SS with Comey and a public apology explaining why it was wrong should be sufficient.

---

The arrogant lawyer would never apologize.

ETA: If Comey issued a statement that he was wrong immediately after posting his sea shell photo then you may have a point.

Don't forget how much enjoyment he derived from railroading Martha Stewart. He's a scumbag.

Quote:

---

It's either a presidential death threat or it is not. Y

---

this is false and shows a complete lack of awareness of the relevant law at play here.

context absolutely matters.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

It's either a presidential death threat or it is not. Y

---

this is false and shows a complete lack of awareness of the relevant law at play here.

context absolutely matters.

---

Not really. If it means "Kill Trump" then it also means "Kill Biden". The message is the message and does not change.

Quote:

---

Get a grip, it's a Tshirt

---

Get a grip. They're sea shells. If it means one thing with seas shells, it mean the same thing on a t-shirt.

Quote:

---

Not really. If it means "Kill Trump" then it also means "Kill Biden". The message is the message and does not change.

---

the supreme court disagrees with you.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

Not really. If it means "Kill Trump" then it also means "Kill Biden". The message is the message and does not change.

---

the supreme court disagrees with you.

---

I must have missed their ruling.

Quote:

---

I must have missed their ruling.

---

That is abundantly clear.